[_ Old Earth _] Jesus wept, Darwin hysterically cried

[kendemyer]

DARWIN AND HYSTERICALLY CRYING

I wrote a thread called Darwin's strange illness which cited the Journal of the American Medical Association, Britannica, Scientific American, and other excellent sources indicating that Darwin often vomited when his macroevolutionary ideas were criticized and that he was obsessed with his critics.

Please see:

Darwin's Strange Ilnness
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16429


The more I found out about Darwin the more the plot appears to thicken.

Here is what I read recently and I would be interested in further research.

Darwin’s many psychological or psychologically influenced physical health symptoms included severe depression, insomnia, hysterical crying, dying sensations, shaking, fainting spells, muscle twitches,shortness of breath, trembling, nausea, vomiting, severe anxiety, depersonalization,seeing spots, treading on air and vision, and other visual hallucinations (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 139; Picover, 1998, p. 290; Colp, 1977, p. 97; Bean, 1978,p. 573).

Barloon, Thomas and Russell Noyes, Jr. 1997. “Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder.â€ÂJAMA 277(2):138–141.Barlow, Nora, ed. 1958.

Bean, W. B. 1978. “The Illness of Charles Darwin.†The American Journal of Medicine 65(4):572–574.Bowlby, John. 1990.

Colp, Ralph Jr. 1977. To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.Darwin, Charles. 1994.

Picover, Clifford A. 1998. Strange Brains and Genius: The Secret Lives of EccentricScientists and Madmen. NY: Quill William Morrow.


TAKEN FROM: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... s+and+colp

Here is the full article:

WAS CHARLES DARWIN PSYCHOTIC? A Study of His Mental Health by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D :
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... s+and+colp

 

[reznwerks]

kendymeyer

Am I mistaken but are you trying to link Darwin and the possibility he may have been depressed with his theory of evolution?

 

[Ajax 777]

Funny thing is, I've been told that upon his deathbed, our dear departed Mr. Darwin actually refuted his theories. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it's quite telling to imagine... ;-)

 

[Barbarian]

Although one can never really know whether or not someone was depressed, Darwin exhibited symptoms of Chaga's disease, a disorder spread by the bite of an insect found in S. America. Darwin reported being bitten by them.

It would explain the mysterious bouts of illness and lassitude he experienced in later life.

However, the old story about Darwin changing his mind on his deathbed has been soundly debunked, and even made the list of "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use" at "Answers in Genesis."

 

[kendemyer]

Science Now regarding Darwin's hysterical crying:

Here is what Science Now says which is a online magazine affiliated with the journal Science I believe:

Until his death in 1882 at 73, Darwin suffered attacks of severe anxiety, often accompanied by heart palpitations, shortness of breath, feelings of impending doom, hysterical crying, and severe nausea and vomiting. He also had frequent feelings of depersonalization, which he described as "treading on air and vision." Moreover, he dreaded leaving his house.

taken from: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 1997/108/4

Here is the full Science Now article:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 1997/108/4


A NEW 500 PAGE BOOK ON DARWIN MENTIONS HIS HYSTERICAL CRYING


Here is something I read from the Washington monthly and it describes a book which I believe may be pertinent:

Charles Darwin: A New Life

John Bowlby. Norton, $24.95. Bowlby's 500-page biography is not the first book to probe Charles Darwin's mysterious illness, which endured for 30 years or more. Authors and scholars have long speculated on the great man's "shivering, dying sensations, ringing in the ears" (to use Darwin's words), his heart palpitations, blurred vision, and hysterical crying fits.

Here is the full article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_10746080



I also cite:

Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist
by Adrian Desmond, James Moore

DESMOND AND MOORE’S DARWIN: A CRITIQUE

by Robert M. Young

Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore is a tour de force, a prodigious feat of scholarship and compilation. It reads well....

Desmond and Moore are meticulous and often moving in their descriptions of his symptoms, ones Darwin summed up to a new medical adviser as ‘Age 56-57. - For twenty-five years extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying[,] dying sensations or half-faint. & copious and very palid urine. Now vomiting & every passage of flatulence preceded by ringing of ears, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots[,] Air fatigues, specially risky, brings on the Head symptoms[,] nervousness when E[mma]. leaves me...’ (p. 531). Rarely do three pages go by without their mentioning symptoms. It is perfectly obvious to them that all of this is psychosomatic and caused by anxiety about the challenge he is mounting to orthodox opinion.

taken from: http://human-nature.com/darwin/books/desmond.html

I also cite:

"Darwin suffered from extreme anxieties as he developed his theories. Colp traces the beginning of Darwin's illness to his first work on evolutionary theory. From the first, his wife Emma worried whether his scientific investigations were going to cost him his soul.

"Darwin dreamt of being beheaded or hanged; he thought a belief that went so contrary to biblical authority was `like confessing a murder."â€â€*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 113

taken from: http://www.present-truth.org/darwin-sick.htm

 

[kendemyer]

TO: Rezenworks


PREFACE

First, this thread is first and foremost a history of science investigation. Now as I said science is a social endeavor. Also, it has been said that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

EMOTION AND HUMAN REASONING

Now I would argue that emotion plays a significant part in human reasoning.

Here is a excellent book on this matter for those who are interested:

Descartes' Error : Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
by Antonio R. Damasio .

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 0?v=glance


I would also argue that many people have highly emotional and romanticized views of history that cloud their reasoning. That is one of the reasons I like the Bible. It is a book of no allusions. It points out the flaws of its main characters. It calls man a depraved sinner in need of a new heart and human history bears this out (although men are said to have consciences and the Holy Spirit is said to convict men of sin) .

Here is one example of what I am talking about:

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
by David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... scopes.asp


Now if science is a social endeavor (and it is) if humans use emotion in their decision making (which I believe they do ) I think it helps to have a realistic historical view and a reasonable view of science in general. If you view scientist or particular science journals or the scientific community or a particular scientist with reverential awe and try to shield out any foibles or weaknesses I think this is very misguided. I think it helps to have a solid base of the history of science so you are not emotionally overly wedded to a particular paradigm. Science community paradigms do fall. History shows this. I think some people forget this and "worship the experts" or a particular paradigm. I think the scientist Alan Hayward makes some good points about experts (facts and opinions, predictions, reliability in various fields, opinions about the past, etc ). Here is his writings on the subject:

Can we trust the experts?
http://www.godstruth.org/chap13

Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps kendemeyer would be more effective if he could put an argument together on his own. focus on one subject, and only cite sources when he actually uses one of them in his argument.

After looking at several of them, and noting that they have little to do with the subject, I'm inclined to avoid them.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps kendemeyer would be more effective if he could put an argument together on his own. focus on one subject, and only cite sources when he actually uses one of them in his argument.

After looking at several of them, and noting that they have little to do with the subject, I'm inclined to avoid them.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I'm inclined to avoid them.

That is his whole strategy. Make a lot of irrelevant or nonsensical arguments in hopes that nobody can provide answers, or even bother to address them, so that he can turn around and say he won the debate.

It would be like asking "what color is the number 7?", and then proclaiming that your opponent can't count since he can't answer the question.

 

[kendemyer]

I will let readers judge who produced the most credible and reputable information and sources regarding the issue of whether or not Darwin engaged in hysterical crying and the other aforementioned behaviors. So far I would say the evolutionists have produced a gruel so thin that even Oliver Twist would push it aside in regards to my initial and subsequent posts.

 

[Andy B.]

Firstly, may I thank Kendemyer for posting the URL of my Scopes Monkey Trial website - I hope this will be of interest to some list members.

In direct reference to the current topic, however, Barbarian wrote:

Although one can never really know whether or not someone was depressed, Darwin exhibited symptoms of Chaga's disease, a disorder spread by the bite of an insect found in S. America. Darwin reported being bitten by them.

It would explain the mysterious bouts of illness and lassitude he experienced in later life.

Whilst I hate to be contradictory on my first visit to this list, I'm afraid the Chagas' disease theory is a definite non-starter.

Rather than post a lengthy e-mail on the point, may I refer you to another of my websites: "Charles Darwin - The Truth?" which provides an extensively referenced study of Charles Darwin's psychology, physical health and behaviour, particularly in respect to the likelihood that "On the Origin of Species" was NOT "all his own work" but was actually plagiarised from the work of a Christian naturalist named Edward Blyth.

The home page is @:

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar0.html

The section which explains why Darwin is very unlikely to have been suffering from Chagas' disease is @:

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar9.html

Best wishes

Andy B.

 

[reznwerks]

sorry

Funny thing is, I've been told that upon his deathbed, our dear departed Mr. Darwin actually refuted his theories. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it's quite telling to imagine... ;-)

Sorry but Darwin did not recant.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iJ ... cant&hl=en
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... ecant.html

 

[peace4all]

ive heard of alot of ppl refuting things on their deathbeds.

atleast we know darwin is dead, and where he died and such. can't say that about other ppl :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:

 

[reznwerks]

no its not

TO: Rezenworks


PREFACE

First, this thread is first and foremost a history of science investigation. Now as I said science is a social endeavor. Also, it has been said that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Since when is science a social endeavor. They are looking for facts and evidence and are not concerned whether one wants cream and sugar in the java.

EMOTION AND HUMAN REASONING

Now I would argue that emotion plays a significant part in human reasoning.
Absolutely and that is where science splits from religion. Facts rule , emotion plays second fiddle. That is why belief which is based on emotion rules the creationist mindset. It is the arguement of reason rather than facts that determines the belief.

Here is a excellent book on this matter for those who are interested:

Descartes' Error : Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
by Antonio R. Damasio .

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 0?v=glance


I would also argue that many people have highly emotional and romanticized views of history that cloud their reasoning.
It is hard to argue with facts and evidence. The only possible link you may have with your statement is the motive behind the event. Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence.

That is one of the reasons I like the Bible. It is a book of no allusions. It points out the flaws of its main characters.
Any novel does the same. When the character cannot be verified all you have is a story.

It calls man a depraved sinner in need of a new heart and human history bears this out (although men are said to have consciences and the Holy Spirit is said to convict men of sin) .
So it says. However is it true? Others would argue no.

Here is one example of what I am talking about:

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.
How can it be presented as historical fact when all know it is not?

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
by David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... scopes.asp


Now if science is a social endeavor (and it is) No its not if humans use emotion in their decision making (which I believe they do ) Science doesn't use emotion, they use evidence. I think it helps to have a realistic historical view and a reasonable view of science in general. If you view scientist or particular science journals or the scientific community or a particular scientist with reverential awe and try to shield out any foibles or weaknesses I think this is very misguided.
Its hard to argue with hard evidence. I think it helps to have a solid base of the history of science so you are not emotionally overly wedded to a particular paradigm. Other than belief which is an emotion what do you have for believing the bible? Science community paradigms do fall. History shows this. I think some people forget this and "worship the experts" or a particular paradigm.
So you think it is better to believe in somethin which has no evidenc or basis to think it is possible than to accept those things which in real life have been shown to exist and be possible? I think the scientist Alan Hayward makes some good points about experts (facts and opinions, predictions, reliability in various fields, opinions about the past, etc ). Here is his writings on the subject:

Can we trust the experts?
http://www.godstruth.org/chap13
Can you trust the believers would be a better question?

Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically.
Science is data. As I said when we know more we adjust the solution.So far theists have had the longest time to show why they are right and so far all they have done is complain. If they are true just show why.

 

[reznwerks]

yea

I will let readers judge who produced the most credible and reputable information and sources regarding the issue of whether or not Darwin engaged in hysterical crying and the other aforementioned behaviors. So far I would say the evolutionists have produced a gruel so thin that even Oliver Twist would push it aside in regards to my initial and subsequent posts.

That is why thousands of students are spending their hard earned cash on the subject and somehow none of them or their teachers have had one inkling that maybe it might be wrong. Somehow all have been decieved and only you and a few others without any evidence whatsoever have somehow been endowed with the truth about the whole matter. How could it possibly be that all those with PHD's and such been decieved and only those who "believe" without evidence and members of predominantly Evangelical organizations be right?Do you realize how many people have to be wrong for you to be right? Do you realize how much evidence you would have to acquire to be right?Do you realize to be right you have to prove it not claim it?

 

[Andy B.]

Re: no its not

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.
How can it be presented as historical fact when all know it is not?

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

As author of that site, may I point out that I actually comment on the way that Inherit the Wind is indeed used by many American educators as though it were historically accurate. The claim that "all know it is not" is extremely naive. In my experience it is clearly the case that "all" know nothing of the kind.

I am able to monitor the actual search strings used when people visit my site via a search engine, and a good number of those queries blend elements of the Scopes Trial and Inherit the Wind "suggesting" that the visitors are not at all clear about which is fact and which is fiction, such as:

"clarence darrow hillsboro"
"why was scopes in jail for teaching evolution"
and so on.

(For those not familiar with this subject: Clarence Darrow was a real life lawyer who led the defense team at the Scopes Trial, "Hillsboro" is the fictional town where Inherit the Wind is set. Bertram Cates, the school teacher in Inherit the Wind, was jailed, John Scopes spent precisely zero minutes in a cell as a result of the charge against him.)

What the opening page of my site makes clear - and I wonder if this is why Kendemyer referred to it - is the "fact" that people have been confusing fact and fiction regarding this trial for a loooong time. And not just Joe Public, but university professors, lawyers, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc., etc.

Even the entry for William Jennings Bryan in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present (a government document) gives the account of Brady's death in "Inherit the Wind" instead of how W.J. Bryan actually died!

The same principle applies in other areas as well - including whether Darwin recanted on his deathbed, etc. I've seen no reliable evidence that he did any such thing, yet the story crops up in just about every online discussion on this topic that I've ever been party to.

It also applies to the "facts" of evolution.

"Fact" - Darwin's "big idea" was natural selection
"Fact" - Darwin probably (IMO) "borrowed" the idea of natural selection from someone else
"Fact" - The value of Darwin's original work was that it showed how natural selection could support indefinite radiation
"Fact" - In The Origin of Species Darwin gives copious *anecdotal* evidence that without outside interference (e.g. human breeders) the effect of natural selection is to conserve the status quo rather than promoting variation
"Fact" - Science is about facts, not emotions
"Fact" - Fat chance! Evolution is an area of academia renowned for the "passion" (to put it nicely) of the protagonists in the various bouts of infighting. Check out The Darwin Wars, by Alan Brown, for example
"Fact" - a "fact" is a "fact", and that's that
"Fact" - A "fact" is the prevailing interpretation of the "evidence". "Evidence" is "out there", "interpretations" are in the heads of the perceivers of the evidence and tend to be somewhat transitory. A single, broken tooth was "evidence" - the idea that this demonstrated the existence of a creature ancestral to modern humans who had crossed from Asia into North America - "Nebraska Man" - was an interpretation.

Darwin collected "evidence" like crazy - though ironically he had little or no idea what it "meant". More and more "evidence" has been accumulating ever since.
But evidence of "what"?
Ahhh, now that's a very good question.



Best wishes

Andy B.

 

[Barbarian]

"Fact" - Darwin's "big idea" was natural selection

One of them. Ernst Mayr, in "Toward a New Philosophy of biology" points out that Darwin's theory reas really five theories.

"Fact" - Darwin probably (IMO) "borrowed" the idea of natural selection from someone else

The nature of science is to build on the ideas of others. Darwin and Wallace are honored because they figured out how it works.

"Fact" - The value of Darwin's original work was that it showed how natural selection could support indefinite radiation

Some of it.

"Fact" - In The Origin of Species Darwin gives copious *anecdotal* evidence that without outside interference (e.g. human breeders) the effect of natural selection is to conserve the status quo rather than promoting variation

Some of it. Other parts of the evidence show how selection can change species.

"Fact" - Science is about facts, not emotions
"Fact" - Fat chance! Evolution is an area of academia renowned for the "passion" (to put it nicely) of the protagonists in the various bouts of infighting. Check out The Darwin Wars, by Alan Brown, for example

Science is a passionate undertaking. Nevertheless, evidence always takes the prize, even if it takes a while.

"Fact" - A "fact" is the prevailing interpretation of the "evidence". "Evidence" is "out there", "interpretations" are in the heads of the perceivers of the evidence and tend to be somewhat transitory. A single, broken tooth was "evidence" - the idea that this demonstrated the existence of a creature ancestral to modern humans who had crossed from Asia into North America - "Nebraska Man" - was an interpretation.

It was for the newspaper that published the report. However, when a paleontologist familiar with mammals got a look at it, he quickly determined that it was from a javalina. Facts.

Darwin collected "evidence" like crazy - though ironically he had little or no idea what it "meant".

In fact, he showed very clearly what it meant. So clearly, he revolutionized biology.

More and more "evidence" has been accumulating ever since.
But evidence of "what"?

Common descent, modes of speciation. Things like that. Would you like to learn about some of it?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I fail to understand the point of attacking Charles Darwin. It is irrelevant if his idea was original or not. It is irrelevant if he liked to do drugs and sleep with prostititues. It makes no difference what his religious convicitons were.

Contrary to what many creationists think, assinating the character of (one of) the creator of evolutionary theory is a wast of time. It is not as though we evolutionists venerate the man. He initiated a very powerful and useful thoery.

I guess if you cannot discredit the theory, you try and discredit the man best known for its inception.

Do you say the USA is an invalid country just because the founding some of fathers fathered children with thier slave girls?

 

[Andy B.]

Hi Conan

An interesting set of half truths, if I may say so.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - Darwin's "big idea" was natural selection

One of them. Ernst Mayr, in "Toward a New Philosophy of biology" points out that Darwin's theory reas really five theories.[/quote:ad49d]

According to Mayr, Darwin didn't even know the meaning of "species", so I don't think there's much mileage in trying to suggest that Mayr was a champion of Darwin's scientific skills.
Anyway, what Mayr made of Darwin's ideas is by no means necessarily what Darwin made of them.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - Darwin probably (IMO) "borrowed" the idea of natural selection from someone else

The nature of science is to build on the ideas of others. Darwin and Wallace are honored because they figured out how it works.[/quote:ad49d]

Through plagiarism - taking someone else's ideas and pretending that no one had ever thought of evolution before he (Darwin) came along?

Darwin and Wallace did NOT figure out how it works, which is why Darwinism has been quietly abandoned. Gregor Mendel figured out "how it works". Darwin hadn't a clue - and Wallace knew even less.

They were honoured - Darwin far more than Wallace - because his writings provided justification for the excessive wealth of the small upper class and the grinding poverty of the huge under class; and because it justified the way we ruled and mercilessly exploited our empire.

It might the rich and good could sleep easy knowing that nature/God had ordauined their high estate.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - The value of Darwin's original work was that it showed how natural selection could support indefinite radiation

Some of it.[/quote:ad49d]

I suggest not. "Natural selection", many scentists (e.g. Prof. Brian Goodwin) now acknowledge, is adequate to explain adaptation (microevolution) but NOT evolution (macroevolution).

Funnily enough they'd reached much the same conclusion in the 1920s - then Sewell Wright, et al came up with the "modern synthesis" and saved evolution, but not Darwinism.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - In The Origin of Species Darwin gives copious *anecdotal* evidence that without outside interference (e.g. human breeders) the effect of natural selection is to conserve the status quo rather than promoting variation

Some of it. Other parts of the evidence show how selection can change species.[/quote:ad49d]

That's precisely what I mean - there's no evidence for any significant change.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - Science is about facts, not emotions
"Fact" - Fat chance! Evolution is an area of academia renowned for the "passion" (to put it nicely) of the protagonists in the various bouts of infighting. Check out The Darwin Wars, by Alan Brown, for example

Science is a passionate undertaking. Nevertheless, evidence always takes the prize, even if it takes a while.[/quote:ad49d]

Huh?
See below.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]"Fact" - A "fact" is the prevailing interpretation of the "evidence". "Evidence" is "out there", "interpretations" are in the heads of the perceivers of the evidence and tend to be somewhat transitory. A single, broken tooth was "evidence" - the idea that this demonstrated the existence of a creature ancestral to modern humans who had crossed from Asia into North America - "Nebraska Man" - was an interpretation.

It was for the newspaper that published the report. However, when a paleontologist familiar with mammals got a look at it, he quickly determined that it was from a javalina. Facts.[/quote:ad49d]

Or "pecary", as I think many people will know it.

Here you are, I'm afraid, sadly astray.

It was Henry Fairfield Osborne, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who invented Nebraska Man, and he quite specifically gave the description I referred to as late as June 1925, YEARS after the first tooth was found. The only thing you can blame on the newspapers is the illustration of Nebraska Man that was not, as far as I know, sanctioned by Osborn or any of his staff.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]Darwin collected "evidence" like crazy - though ironically he had little or no idea what it "meant".

In fact, he showed very clearly what it meant. So clearly, he revolutionized biology.[/quote:ad49d]

Wrong again. Darwin's "scientific" knowledge was so miniscule that it took him nearly half his life to learn to distinguish one variety of grass from another.

By the way, we could avoid most of this banter if you cared to examine the contents of my websites. Details of the Nebraska Man business are on the Scopes Trial site; Darwin's lack of scientific expertise is catalogued on the Charles Darwin site. Since you clearly know next to nothing about the "evidence" regarding Darwin's life and work - as demonstrated in these answers and in your misguided *suggestion* that Darwin suffered from Chagas' Disease - you might find it interesting, or even useful.

[quote="Andy B.":ad49d]More and more "evidence" has been accumulating ever since.
But evidence of "what"?

Common descent, modes of speciation. Things like that. Would you like to learn about some of it?[/quote:ad49d]

Common descent - that wouldn't be anything to do with Haeckel's discredited drawings, or the failed "science" of homology, would it? You'll find those documented on the Scopes Trial site.

As for "modes of speciation" I have no argument with speciation so I don't need convincing, ta.

And in any case, all you are doing is listing the "evidence". It says nothing about how evidence might be "interpreted".

Best wishes

Andy B.

 

[Andy B.]

Hi, Late'

I fail to understand the point of attacking Charles Darwin.

How interesting you should think that critiquing Darwin is attacking him.
If I write about Lord Nelson and suggest that standing on the deck of his ship, in the midst of battle, dressed so as to make himself a highly visible target for French snipers (which I gather is generally agreed by historians) am I "attacking" Nelson, or simply making an observation which might lead us towards a better understanding of the man as a whole?

It is irrelevant if his idea was original or not. It is irrelevant if he liked to do drugs and sleep with prostititues. It makes no difference what his religious convicitons were.

Irrelevant in relation to what?
I thought this discussion was about Darwin's psychology.
Since most of his biographers have dealt with that topic in some depth then either you think they are all missing the point - or maybe you are.

Contrary to what many creationists think,...

Ah ha! And how, precisely, do you know what "many creationists" think?
And why raise this subject anyway?

Could it be that you adhere to the Dawkins/Dennet hypothesis that the easiest way to stifle contrary opinions is to claim that everyone who doesn't share your view must be a creationist?

If you don't think Darwin should be critiqued why on earth have you come on a blatantly Christian website? Seems kinda masochistic to me.

...assinating the character of (one of) the creator of evolutionary theory is a wast of time.

Again, Dawin's biographers - especially Janet Browne, Professor of the History of Science (and definitely NOT a creationist) - are painting an increasingly dark picture of Darwin's personality.
Are they all wrong - or have YOU missed the point, I wonder.

It is not as though we evolutionists venerate the man.

Well, not you personally, perhaps, but many evolutionists do just that, and I'll find you any number of statements BY EVOLUTIONISTS to that effect, including Professor Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard) and Professor Edward (?) Conklin (Princeton). So I guess it is YOU who have missed the point.

He initiated a very powerful and useful thoery.

Double whammy!

No, DARWIN did NOT "initiate" the hypothesis that bears his name. And NO, it isn't a "very powerful and useful thoery". I think *maybe* you are confusing Darwinism with Evolutionism (Darwinism being a "special case" of evolutionistism).

I guess if you cannot discredit the theory, you try and discredit the man best known for its inception.

Well, you're certainly entitled to guess. But in this case *I* "guess" you got it about as wrong as you could in one short e-mail.

As with Conan, I invite you to actually visit my website and read the entire thing before presuming to know what points it makes.
If you aren't prepared to make that much of an effort, then I "guess" that speaks for itself, huh?

:

Best wishes

Andy B.